The diplomatic confusion around the Syrian crisis is huge, analysts and columnists are at a loss to make any sense out of it, and maybe diplomats are, too.

Within Syria, the situation is relatively simple to understand: the country is divided between the regime and various rebel brigades, the Bashar al-Assad regime has no prospect of regaining political legitimacy over the entire country, while the civilian opposition is unable to unify its positions. The only certainty is that the jihadists have the strongest fighters and that they will extract a political price from this situation when the time comes.

The al-Assad regime is alive thanks to the Russian position, which itself has a lot more to do with Russia’s standing in world affairs than the Syrian crisis. One can even claim that Russia’s interests in the region cannot be served by a surviving al-Assad regime anymore. China is aligned with Russia for its own bilateral reasons.

The European Union has had the good idea of self-marginalizing itself through the mechanisms emanating from the Lisbon treaty. Even the “big two” (France and the United Kingdom) do not matter much on their own, because the weakness of the EU system as a whole (which they engineered) prevents them from carrying the entire 27 with them.

Qatar’s and Saudi Arabia’s policy of arming some rebel factions does favor the rise of the most radical of Islamists movements in northern Syria, which runs against the future stability of the country and against Western interests. Turkey itself has long had a fluctuating policy; it first embraced Bashar al-Assad, then called for his removal and then began training rebels even as it suffered from the spillover effects on its own territory. Turkey’s position is now firmly under the U.S. umbrella, particularly since the Patriot missiles deployment earlier this year and the Washington meetings last month.

As for Israel, it is prepared for any type of contingency and will defend its vital interests according to its own agenda and strong military capabilities. Iran and its proxy, the Lebanese Hezbollah, are playing with fire since they have a lot to lose in the downfall of al-Assad. In addition, Iran has ulterior motives to oppose Western powers.

Finally, the U.S. has shown an unprecedented risk aversion in the Middle East as a result of its successive engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan. For Washington, the stakes are, however, wider than just Syria; they touch upon the security of Israel, Iran’s nuclear capabilities and the worldwide trade in oil and gas.

Does this leave any prospect for the Geneva II conference supposed to be held in June? Little, it seems. The conference will be awfully difficult to put together for a host of reasons. The first attempt will probably end up in miserable confusion. Subsequently, back-channel meetings will take place until a realization is made that a compromise solution, however shaky, is better than the current descent into inferno.

The main difficulties are well-known. The Syrian civilian opposition is utterly weak and divided, leaving the political and military clout to the Islamists. One underlying assumption is that elections can be held in Syria, but this is a non-starter since the country doesn’t have any credible electoral system, not even voters’ lists.

Yet, with a push from Moscow, a “compromise” could be found between the opposition and “reasonable elements” of the regime. This will resemble Tunisia and Egypt on the day after revolution: interesting on paper but not sustainable. Later on, should elections be held, the outcome is more than predictable: the winners will be the Islamists. Unless Syria is partitioned.

This looks awful indeed. Yet, the only way forward at this stage is more diplomatic footwork between the U.N. Security Council’s “permanent five” and renewed efforts at back-channel (or “track two”) diplomacy. Until all the parties realize where the narrow path serving their combined interests lies.

I don't know what to make from the sentence "Turkey’s position is now firmly under the U.S. umbrella".
If the author believes that the Turkish position is aligned with US interests he is utterly wrong. Erdogan thinks only of his own interests and these are mainly Sunni sectarian: he has openly asked for replacement of Assad by a Sunni.
The best characterization I encountered of Erdogan was that of a narcissist emperor who can't stand any opposition. Whenever he faces opposition, whether the Israeli attack on the Mavi Marmara, Assad's refusal to implement the reforms Erdogan asked or the recent Taksim protests, he reacts with the same disproportional rage.
The author claims that if elections are held the Islamists will win. I think that depends. Syria has a solid secular tradition and people have been able to see how intolerant Islamists can be. It should be noted that the rebels insist that Assad should not take part in an election (probably because he might attract many votes) and that they refused to take part in elections held by Assad (yes, there were elections!!!).

Post your comments 2500 character limit. No links or markup permitted. Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately. Screen names appear with your comment.

Screen Name

Follow the conversation—Sign up to receive email updates when comments are posted to this article.

Email Address

Characters Used 0

Borderline

June 30, 20139:02 pm

One thing is sure, the events in Syria are changing at the speed of light. On June 3th the day this article was published, we though the rebels were slowly gaining traction against Assad regime, and the US would never overcome its aversion to another armed conflict in the Middle East or that Mr. Putin was serious about a political solution. One month later the conflict has a regional label with Hezbollah and Iran direct intervention, Mr. Assad with the wind on his back have the rebels running in the opposite direction, the US is hurriedly arming the rebels, and Mr. Putin loyalty behind Assad is beyond any doubt. In the meantime, millions of Syrians are facing starvation, diseases, and the likelihood to be killed in their own homes. The suffering of Syrian refugees is even more difficult to explain. In the end, there will be no winners only losers. The biggest lose however, is the TRUST we had that we were safe in our own country, in our own homes or trust our political and democratic institutions, and by the same token our political leaders.

Comment Policy

Comments that include profanity, personal attacks, or other inappropriate material will be removed. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, steps will be taken to block users who violate any of the posting standards, terms of use, privacy policies, or any other policies governing this site. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.